Wednesday, July 14, 2010

This is the sixth and final installment of testimony from Detective Comics, Inc. vs. Bruns (Fox) Publications. As I've done previously, I’ll present the scanned transcript pages and leave my comments to the end.

Finally, it came down to the testimony of Harry Donenfeld. His presence loomed over the entire proceedings as every one of the case's participants knew him and most had reason to fear him. To even casual observers, Donenfeld's long, disreputable past was well-known:

"Last week the new owner and the future of the Police Gazette were revealed. The owner is Merwil Publishing Co. consisting of Irving & Harry Donenfeld and Mrs. Merle Williams Hersey. Merwil Publishing Co. issues five of the smuttiest magazines on the newsstands..." [TIME MAGAZINE, "Barber's Bible", July 31, 1933]

Victor Fox makes a brief reappearance on the stand after Donenfeld in rebuttal to conclude the testimony. I have included that here as well.

Although brief, Donenfeld's testimony was--like the man himself--direct and uncompromising:

Manges: Mr. Donenfeld, you are president of the plaintiff corporation?

Donenfeld: I am, sir.

Manges: Did Mr. Fox ever submit to you a dummy for a magazine Kid Comics?

Donenfeld: No, sir.

Manges: Did Mr. Fox ever submit to you a any dummy with the "Wonderman" character on it?

Donenfeld: No, sir.

While much of his testimony is devoted to detailing--and apparently proving with canceled checks--that he was not in New York City at the time Fox claimed to have met with him to propose KID COMICS, it is during cross-examination on another matter that Donenfeld shows some anger:

Blim: Haven't you pleaded guilty in the Federal Court recently for sending obscene matter through the mails?

Donenfeld: No, sir, I was never involved in any Federal Court action.

Blum: I would like to have you search your memory because I want the correct answer, if you remember it. Haven't you pleaded guilty in the Federal Court recently?

Donenfeld: Do you think I'm going to perjure myself?

Blum: I don't know.

Donenfeld: I have made a definite statement that I was never indicted, never had any business with any Federal authorities or any Federal courts; never been indicted and never pleaded. Is that clear?

Blum: That is clear.

Donenfeld: O.K., sir.

The simmering animosity between Donenfeld and Fox is laid bare when the latter takes the stand briefly in an attempt to rebut Donenfeld's words:

Manges: Have you any proof at all besides your word that you saw Mr. Donenfeld in New York between January 10th and January 20th, that those dates are correct, in 1938?

Fox: I was unprepared for the question, but if I have the time--I keep memorandums of all my conversations with Donenfeld as I found that they were not always according to Hoyle.

With Fox's testimony, the trial ends. We have the advantage afforded by time to know the outcome of the case in Detective Comics favor. Despite several appeals, the decision stands.

The ironies surrounding this case abound. The chilling effect DC hoped the decision would have on any other potential imitators didn't materialize. Even while the case was being heard, new super-powered characters were hitting the newsstands. By the time all appeals had been exhausted, the floodgates had been irrevocably opened. Even Victor Fox never visibly hesitated, as his comics featured one super-hero after another.

Within a decade of this 1939 case, the alliances involved had drastically changed.

Although Victor Fox had stiffed Eisner and Iger the $3,000 he owed them at the time of this case, they continued doing business with him. In fact, Iger, long after Eisner had split from the partnership, would be producing material for Fox's comics virtually until he stopped publishing in the 1950s. The aforementioned Eisner-Iger split left the former partners at odds, particularly evident in Iger's bitter memories later in his life.

Jerry Siegel, already angry over DC's shady accounting practices denying him and Shuster any profits from their creation, would--with Shuster--eventually sue the corporation. The first suit, initiated in 1947, ended not only with DC prevailing, but the ostracizing of both creators from DC for years.

By 1944, M.C Gaines ended his relationship with DC with the sale of All-American to Donenfeld's emerging National Comics. This too was an acrimonious split that had been exacerbated by tensions between him and his partner, Jack Liebowitz. Even Gaines' editor and protégé, Sheldon Mayer, switched his allegiance by staying with DC when Gaines went on to form Educational Comics.
__________________________________________________________

FINAL THOUGHTS

Having the opportunity to present this extraordinary historical document has been a true privilege. I don't question whether it was luck or something I did that prompted the finder of this transcript to contact me and then to allow me to publish it online, I'm just thankful that he did.

And to answer all those who wondered where this document had been found...

it is available to us all, where it has always been, in the National Archives.

Sunday, July 11, 2010

This is the fifth installment of testimony from Detective Comics, Inc. vs. Bruns (Fox) Publications. As I've done previously, I’ll present the scanned transcript pages and leave my comments to the end.

M.C.Gaines and Sheldon Mayer. For nearly a decade the two were linked, from the early years when Gaines was packaging comics with Mayer as his assistant, to Mayer's ascension to editor over Gaines' All-American line.

"He [Mayer] worked better with the cantankerous Charlie Gaines, maybe because they both felt too smart for the world around them and they didn't mind the yelling." [Gerard Jones, MEN OF TOMORROW, pg. 122]

This linkage continues as Mayer's testimony is built to support that of Gaines, hence, I present them together.

Max Gaines description of his acquisition and subsequent presentation of Superman to DC is perhaps the earliest contemporaneous relating of those events.

Worth noting is Gaines' testimony about a meeting he had with Jerry Iger in late April, 1938:

Gaines: ...he [Iger] was interested at that time in coming out with another comic magazine. He had a lot of material available and could get other material and he wanted help from me to finance him in a comic publication.

If true, this poses the question: Did Iger contact Gaines without Fox's knowledge with the intention of publishing his own comic book?

Gaines goes on to make the potentially damning accusation that his assistant (Mayer) gave Iger copies of all five comics being packaged by him, including a copy of ACTION COMICS #1.

While he unequivocally backed his boss's words, Mayer's testimony is frustratingly short. The only new bit of information worthy of extraction was his memory of Iger's proposed comic book:

Blum: Do you remember the drawings Mr. Iger showed you in April?

Mayer: I do.

Blum: What were they?

Mayer: They were a series of--well, several series. As a matter of fact, they were photostatic copies of drawings and if I'm not mistaken most of them were used in Jumbo Comics.

Blum: What characters were in those drawings Mr. Iger showed you?

Mayer: Oh, there was an aviation strip and a spy strip. I don't recall the names of the characters because they didn't impress me very much at the time.

If Mayer's recollection was correct, Iger may have been showing him stats of Les Marshall's "Modern 'Planes" and Eisner's "ZX-5" spy features. Both were proven strips from the Eisner/Iger shop that had seen publication in the JUMBO, and could well have been part of any proposal Iger would have shown Mayer.

Gaines' description of Joe Shuster's use of Ben-Day (misspelled "Benda" in the transcript) on the first week of Superman strips is one of those little things that probably went unnoticed by most in court that day, but is intriguing to comic fans 70 years later. From his words, though, it seems that Gaines was describing Duo-Shade. This is the process in which a chemical developer is applied to Duo-Shade paper bringing out the desired pattern, as Gaines' describes. Ben-Day differs in that it is a dot pattern transferred from prepared overlay sheets of paper to a surface by use of a burnishing tool.

One aspect not generally (if ever) discussed was Gaines' original intention for the Superman feature:

Gaines: I had an idea of getting out a certain weekly tabloid containing a certain type of comic strip form for newspaper syndication and I wrote to Mr. Siegel and asked him if he still had available the material which he had sent me several years ago and which I had returned and to please forward it immediately as I might have some use for it.

Although Gaines' idea of a weekly comic tabloid didn't pan out for him, others in the courtroom may have been taking mental notes. Victor Fox published samples of his own weekly comic tabloid dated May 12, 1940 entitled FREE WEEKLY COMIC MAGAZINE, less than a month before "Busy" Arnold and the Register and Tribune Syndicate came out with Eisner's SPIRIT newspaper supplement.

Thursday, July 8, 2010

This is the fourth installment of testimony from Detective Comics, Inc. vs. Bruns (Fox) Publications. As I've done previously, I’ll present the scanned transcript pages and leave my comments to the end.

Jerry Siegel needs no introduction--to us. But in 1939, he was just a young Midwestern writer-for-hire who had come up with the costumed character that was the bone of contention in this courtroom. Although he was likely intimidated by the proceedings, Siegel suspected what Liebowitz and Donenfeld already knew: Superman was a money-maker. Getting his fair share of that money would be another matter.

"Now in reply to your letter. Frankly, when I got through reading it, it took my breath away. I did not anticipate that when I asked you to come to New York to discuss this matter of newspaper syndication, that you would want to take advantage of this visit and try to boost up your price on "Superman". You must bear in mind, Jerry, that when we started Action Comics, we agreed to give you $10.00 a page, which is $4.00 a page more than anyone else is getting for any feature in any of our four books." [Jack Liebowitz in a letter to Siegel, Sept. 28, 1938]

[note: I've also included the brief testimony of Warren Angel, Vice President and General Manager of Kable News. While his testimony has little, if any affect on the case's outcome, I have included it for the completists out there.]
__________________________________________________________

TESTIMONY OF JERRY SIEGEL

Siegel, pg. 1

Siegel, pg. 2

Siegel, pg. 3

Siegel, pg. 4

Siegel, pg. 5

Siegel, pg. 6

Siegel, pg. 7

Siegel, pg. 8

Siegel, pg. 9

Siegel, pg. 10

Angel, pg. 1

Angel, pg. 2

Angel, pg. 3

Angel, pg. 4

__________________________________________________________

COMMENTS

Siegel's role in testifying was, by design, very specific.

Manges: I only bring on this witness because they plead as a separate defense lack of originality.

Despite being the creator (along with Joe Shuster) of Superman, Siegel suffered the ignominy of knowing he was just the hired help. Instead of being the aggrieved parties, the ones suing for damages for copyright infringement, Siegel and Shuster had signed away all rights to the character. Siegel sat in the courtroom as Liebowitz and the attorneys detailed the copyright transfer, the phenomenal success of the comic and the potential licensing possibilities.

And he was here only to speak to the originality of his creation.

The defense attorney tries to imply that Siegel copied the currently popular comic strip, The Phantom, thereby making it the common source for both Superman and Wonder Man. After getting Siegel to acknowledge familiarity with The Phantom, the defense attorney tries to pin him down:

Blum: How was that character, "The Phantom", dressed; in what costume?

Siegel: Well, when I first saw the book [a "Phantom" Big Little Book] I was startled to see how similar it was to the "Superman" features.

What seems to be an admission of imitation, soon proves to be something else entirely:

Siegel: However, there is one other thing I would like to mention--I mean in connection with my having seen this book.

Blum: Go ahead.

Siegel: When I saw this book I went over to the artist's office, and I wondered whether our "Superman" had been lying around the King Features Syndicate.

Siegel's (obviously rehearsed) implication that The Phantom may have been copied from his submission of Superman to King Features, briefly rattles the plaintiff's attorney before they move on.

While Siegel never does produce a drawing of Superman that pre-existed its publication in ACTION COMICS--odd, since such drawings have turned up since--he does satisfy the Court with a letter submitting the strip to Frank Armer, editor of Super Magazines, Inc, dated June 20, 1934. Not stated, but known to at least some of those in court that day:

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

This is the third installment of testimony from Detective Comics, Inc. vs. Bruns (Fox) Publications. As in the two previous, I’ll present the scanned transcript pages and leave my comments to the end.

Fittingly, Jack Liebowitz leads off for the plaintiffs. The former accountant had worked his way up through Harry Donenfeld’s organization, from business manager, to secretary-treasurer, to Max Gaines partner in the Donenfeld-funded All-American Comics venture. He was also chief guardian of the Superman franchise:

“He (Liebowitz) was ferocious within the industry, though. As Superman imitations poured from cheap printing presses in 1939 and 1940, it became almost habitual for the company to toss around lawsuits and threatening letters.” [Gerard Jones, MEN OF TOMORROW, pg. 165]

Not just because it establishes Fox's opportunity and means of acquiring the sales figures of--and consequently, the motivation to copy--ACTION COMICS, but it peels back the layers of incestuous relationships between the participants. From a historical perspective, Liebowitz's words may be more revealing, if not as shocking, as Eisner's.

To begin with, he puts to rest this apocryphal tale:

"…Harry Donenfeld's accountant, Victor Fox came in to work at 10:00 AM, saw the sales figures for Action Comics #1, he quit his job at 11:00 AM, spent the noon hour finding some office space to rent, and by 2 PM he was interviewing people to do superhero comics for him." [Jamie Coville, "Siegel, Shuster and Superman"]

The truth is more involved and more intriguing. After establishing the close proximity of Bruns to DC (both were in the same building, two floors apart), the plaintiff's attorney reveals a deeper relationship:

Manges: Is Mr. Donenfeld the president of your company?

Liebowitz: He is.

Manges: And did Mr. Donenfeld at one time have a 50 percent interest in the Bruns Publications?

Liebowitz: Yes.

Wheels within wheels. Not only was Donenfeld owner of Detective Comics and distributor, Independent News, but was also Fox's one-time partner in Bruns. Meanwhile Liebowitz, secretary-treasurer of DC, served in a similar capacity for Independent News, of which, Fox was a customer.

It was as a client of that distributor that Fox had access to the sales figures of ACTION COMICS. It seems that he would make a daily trip to the offices of Independent News to check the sales of his own WORLD ASTROLOGY MAGAZINE. While flipping through the unsorted "pick-up" cards, Fox had the opportunity to see the astounding sell-through rate of ACTION compared to the meager sales of WORLD ASTROLOGY.

Liebowitz also makes reference to a comic book proposed to him by Fox in February, 1939:

Manges: Will you tell his Honor what was said by Mr. Fox and what was said by you, to the best of your recollection?

Liebowitz: Well, he was up to see me at one time at the office, I think it was around five o'clock. A part of the conversation was to inform me he was going to publish a comic magazine and that the issue was being prepared in about two weeks.

Was this WONDER COMICS or the KID COMICS mentioned by Fox? If so, their stories, not surprisingly, vary wildly. Fox claimed he had this conversation with Donenfeld and a full year earlier, in January, 1938. As is frequently the case, timing is everything, and proof of it becomes central to this case.

Sunday, July 4, 2010

This is the second installment of testimony from the transcript of the legendary lawsuit pitting plaintiff Detective Comics, Inc. against upstart publisher Victor Fox (Bruns Publications) and his distributors for copyright infringement of DC's franchise character, Superman.

I'm going to step back and let Jerry Iger and Victor Fox speak for themselves, but I quickly want to say "Thank you" to all the folks who have contacted me over the past few days regarding my publication of this historic document. Once again, the thanks should go to the actual finder of the transcript; I only provide the forum for its viewing.

[note: the "Mr. Stolz" referred to in the first portion of this testimony was the vice-president of Interborough News. The court was trying to subpoena Stolz to testify to his sending of a letter to various people connected with distribution for his company.]

__________________________________________________________

TESTIMONY OF JERRY IGER & VICTOR FOX

Iger, pg. 1

Iger, pg. 2

Iger, pg. 3

Iger, pg. 4

Iger, pg. 5

Iger, pg. 6

Fox, pg. 1

Fox, pg. 2

Fox, pg. 3

Fox, pg. 4

Fox, pg. 5

Fox, pg. 6

Fox, pg. 7

__________________________________________________________

COMMENTS

After wading through some preliminary side-talk, it doesn’t take long to realize that Jerry Iger’s testimony was crafted to bolster what Eisner had said earlier. As Wonder Man’s creator (à la Victor Fox), Eisner was tapped to carry the weight of the defense’s case.

The direct questioning of Iger hoped to establish the defense’s contention that Eisner had created “The Wonderman” in January 1938 and had presented his rough sketch to Fox at that time. This was crucial to their case. The implication that The Phantom was a common source for both Superman and Wonder Man was offered and just as quickly dismissed by Judge Woolsey, who seemed to be losing his patience.

The plaintiff’s attorney, trying to find an exploitable fracture between Eisner and Iger’s testimonies, elicited this humorously coy response:

Manges: When did you first read the script “Superman” in Action Comics?

Iger: After the question of whether we had copied the character in Action Comics called--what do you call him? I don’t recall. As a matter of fact, I very seldom read--I don't read all the comic books. We do read the comic books that we supply.

Iger got off relatively easy as opposed to the grilling that Eisner received. Things got a bit more interesting, though, when Victor Fox took the stand.

Almost overlooked in light of the shock of Eisner’s earlier testimony, were references to a proposed comic titled, KID COMICS. Under questioning, Fox goes into detail:

Blum: Did you take up this matter of this Kid Comics magazine with Mr. Donenfeld?

Fox: I suggested to him that I would manufacture a so-called tabloid sized comic magazine which would be twice the size of those ordinarily sold by other publishers of 28 or 32 pages, I don’t recall which, and I submitted this dummy to him and I said, “I want you to put this out for five cents, as a five-cent seller. There is no other one in the market for five cents. I would like you to distribute it for us.” He said, “Let me have the dummy. I will talk it over with my associate and we will let you know.”

This proposed publication (which was new to me) sounds quite a bit like Eisner/Iger’s JUMBO COMICS, which was itself a reworking of the material they had produced for J.B. Power’s overseas tabloid, WAGS. What makes this different is Fox’s suggestion to Donenfeld (if he is be believed) that it be priced at five cents.

Questions abound: was this proposal actually made to Donenfeld by Fox? If so, when? Was KID COMICS an earlier version of JUMBO with the same contents, or was it a later creation, containing new material?

In any case, KID COMICS was key to the defense’s position that DC was the real plagiarist:

Mr. Blum: Just a minute please, I am replying to the Court. He (Fox) verifies this affidavit in March, 1939, and he says, “I find that a number of ideas that were embodied in the dummy of Kid Comics which I left with Donenfeld are being used in a number of Donenfeld’s comic magazines; to wit, Action Comics,” and then he referred to two other magazines.

The Court: In other words, your position is switching around and claiming that in effect Mr. Donenfeld’s organization was plagiarizing something that they saw--I don’t know the names of the people that were on the stand yesterday--that were drawn and submitted to you; that is what you are claiming?

Mr. Blum: That is correct.

This startling accusation was apparently just a ploy to put the DC on the defensive. Nothing other than Fox’s words support the claim and to this point, no dummy copy of KID COMICS has yet been found.